Please check your proof carefully and mark all corrections at the appropriate place in the proof (e.g., by using on-screen annotation in the PDF file) or compile them in a separate list. Note: if you opt to annotate the file with software other than Adobe Reader then please also highlight the appropriate place in the PDF file. To ensure fast publication of your paper please return your corrections within 48 hours.For correction or revision of any artwork, please consult http://www.elsevier.com/artworkinstructions.Any queries or remarks that have arisen during the processing of your manuscript are listed below and highlighted by flags in the proof. Click on the 'Q' link to go to the location in the proof. Location inQuery / Remark: click on the Q link to go article Please insert your reply or correction at the corresponding line in the proof Reference(s) given here were noted in the reference list but are missing from the text -please position each reference in the text or delete it from the list. Section 7 is mentioned in the text, but as such there is no section. Please check. Q5Uncited references: This section comprises references that occur in the reference list but not in the body of the text. Please position each reference in the text or, alternatively, delete it. Any reference not dealt with will be retained in this section. Q6Please supply the name of the city of publication for references ' Belletti (1990) Japanese, and Spanish. We claim that this fronting is in principle compatible with all types of embedded clauses regardless of whether the 11 selecting predicate is factive/non-factive, or whether the selected proposition is asserted/non-asserted. Languages vary on how freely 12 they allow topic preposing in various types of complements. Adapting an intervention account of RTs in which an event operator moving to 13Spec,CP intervenes with other types of operations, we claim that two A 0 -movements compete for the same syntactic position in certain 14 types of clauses. We account for the variation in the distribution of RTs and non-RTs across languages by the options made possible by 15 inheritance of discourse features. In Japanese and Spanish, the topic feature may be inherited by T from C, so that some instances of 16 topic fronting are to Spec,TP. This movement does not compete with the operator that has moved to Spec,CP, so no competition arises. In 17 contrast, the topic feature stays in C in English, so that topic fronting and the operator movement to CP vie for the same position. This then 18 triggers a competition effect in many constructions such as factives where operator movement has occurred. 19

Chomsky (1973) attributes the island status of nominal subjects to the Subject Condition, a constraint specific to subjects. English and Spanish are inter esting languages for the comparative study of extraction from subjects, because subjects in English are predominantly preverbal, whereas in Spanish they can be either preverbal or postverbal. In this paper we argue that the islandhood of sub ject DPs in both English and Spanish is not categorical. The degradation associ ated with extraction from subjects must be attributed to the interplay of a range of more general constraints which are not specific to subjects. We argue that the interaction of these constraints has a cumulative effect whereby the more constraints that are violated, the higher the degree of degradation that results. We also argue that some speakers have a greater tolerance for constraint viola tions than others, which would account for widespread interspeaker judgment variability.

Abstract. In this paper we explore the interaction of discourse properties in the syntax of small clauses from a cross-linguistic perspective. In line with Chomsky's (2007Chomsky's ( , 2008 idea that phasal properties should be extended to all phases, we argue for a strict parallelism between C-T and v-V, suggesting that v enters the derivation with both agreement and discourse features. These features may be inherited by V depending on the relevant language. Building on Miyagawa (2010) and Jim enez-Fern andez (2010), we claim that in Spanish and Greek, in contrast with English, both agreement and discourse features are inherited by V. This strategy accounts for the different order rearrangements detected in small clauses. The proposal can easily be extended to other languages such as Italian, Serbo-Croatian, Russian and Ukrainian, as opposed to French, Norwegian, Afrikaans and German. IntroductionThe goal of this work is to explore the interaction of discourse properties in the syntax of small clauses (SCs, hereafter) from a cross-linguistic perspective. In line with Chomsky's (2007Chomsky's ( , 2008 idea that phasal properties should be extended to all phases, we will argue for a strict parallelism between C-T and v-V, claiming that v enters the derivation with both agreement and discourse features, φ-features and d-features, respectively. Miyagawa (2005Miyagawa ( , 2010 and Jim enez-Fern andez (2010) have claimed that languages may be classified according to the type of feature that they highlight in the CP-domain: either φ-features or d-features or both. We assume that giving prominence to one type of feature is crucially related to the possibility of the feature-inheritance mechanism that defines phasal heads. Concerning the CP-system, this leaves us with a threefold typology of languages: those that allow lowering of only φ-features, those permitting only the percolation of d-features, and those *An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2010 LAGB meeting in Leeds. We are very thankful to the audience for their comments. In addition, we are grateful to Shigeru Miyagawa, João Costa, Pilar Barbosa, Theresa Biberauer, Merete Anderssen, Christoph Ehlers, Violeta Demonte, Alain Rouveret and Christer Platzack, among others, for their comments and/or data. No doubt they have contributed in making a stronger paper. We are also thankful to Cristine Schaetz for revising the English. All possible errors are ours. The following abbreviations are used in the glosses: ACC = accusative, GEN = genitive, CL = clitic, FEM = feminine, FOC = focus, FUT = future, IND = indicative, MSC = masculine, NEUT = neuter, NOM = nominative, PRES = present, PL = plural, SG = singular, SUB = subjunctive, TOP = topic.

No abstract

No abstract